Discussion in 'Off The Beaten Track' started by Buzz, Nov 16, 2012.
I won't miss the Twinkies- never liked them. It's the orange cupcakes I'm upset about!!!
Alex cracks me up.
The Teamsters urged the bakers to take the deal, based on their review of the records. The Teamsters aren't known for being pro-management, so I can only assume that they knew the truth of what was going on. it's the bakers who were stupid -- but hey! They stood their ground and now nobody there has jobs. Way to go!
And yet, many think paying more taxes is a good thing. And if taxes go up, we will have no choice but to pay it. So, we will have less, not nothing.
When is there NOT corporate greed?
You took money from the government for hours that you did not work?
Also from wikipedia:
The employees saw their co-workers losing their jobs while the corporate heads were not only failing at their jobs, but taking pay increases.
I read that the workers took a pay cut around 2006 and were asked to take another pay cut recently while...
Gregory Rayburn, Hostess CEO, Allegedly Got 300 Percent Raise As Company Approached Bankruptcy
Of course you have a choice, you just have to pay the consequences. And they have chosen that route.
Hey, that was my employer's decision to go with that program, not mine. I would much rather be working 40 hours a week than 32. FYI - we were allowed to be on this program for 53 weeks, but the POB decided to stop after 40 weeks, so that was a managerial decision that paid off for the company. And then a year ago every employee received a bonus check to make up for the fact that we hadn't gotten a COLA increase since 2008 (I got an increase this past March). We made it through with no layoffs - only two employees left, but that was their own choosing, & I took over for one of them, so I was bumped back to 40/week before anyone else was; I'm a firm believer in cross-training and taking on multiple responsibilities - it shows a person to be more of an asset to a company than those who say "it's not MY job!" so I was glad to do it.
That is nuts about the CEO getting an increase. One thing that stands out in my acenario is that fact that the owner of the company where I work stopped receiving a paycheck during that whole downturn (yep - he gets a 40/week tally and a paystub like everyone else). He's very consistant in putting his workers first (like giving us TWO 4-day weekends for Christmas and New Year's with Holiday Pay as opposed to making us use our Vacation/Personal Time ).
But should people just accept a pay cut, when they have already had a pay cut, and are probably having a lot of trouble making ends meet? Earning a fair wage was one of the major goals of unions and it seems reasonable to me. Do you want to live in a world where people are working for what amounts to slave wages? Especially if you are one of them? And companies are profiting off your backs while you count your pennies?
Sure, you can say that any wage is better than no wage and it's true to a point. But the minimum is barely holding up in many places - people need to earn a living wage.
Rayburn was hired in March of this year as a restructuring expert to help the company through bankruptcy, and shortly after the bankruptcy he was promoted to CEO presumably with a corresponding raise. He didn't cause the financial problems at the company, but has significant restructuring experience maximizing value whether through a reorg if possible or a liquidation. His contract as CEO was approved by the bankruptcy court and interested parties had a chance to review and object as part of the court process.
The original article has been updated with a correction:
Our news reported that so many people stocked up when the story came out that they can't find any.
And they just came out with chocolate filled Twinkies not long ago! I like some Little Debbie things, but they don't make the strawberry cupcakes. I don't even like sugary stuff that much, but half of a chocolate filled Twinkie or the cupcake without the icing hits the "desert" spot. Little Debbie has always been cheaper, but about a month ago, Kroger had Hostess on sale 2 boxes for $5. I should have stocked up then!!!
Uggggghhhh, I hadn't thought of them!
I love those orange cupcakes, too. Sigh.
At the facility up here near me, employees took a 20% pay cut in their last contract. I don't know if benefits and etc. were affected as well at that time.
That's really the thing that the workers up here are talking about - the majority of the workers, who were Teamsters, had already accepted the new deal. The bakers union held out, and brought the company down.
The workers seem torn over what's happened - some are talking about the reality of trying to find a new job up here, where jobs of that type and salary/benefit structure aren't plentiful; they don't seem angry at the baker's union - more numb, with some anger at management. Others are saying that they'd already given so much in the last negotiation (the 20% cut negotiation), when they had been told then they had to take those severe cuts to save the company. So they took that deal, and yet the company's situation did not improve, so they felt they couldn't take the cuts again - that doing so would be just as useless as the last round of cuts; that they were being used and manipulated.
Maybe this is why some of unionized workers were skeptical?
The workers took a pay cut and then were asked to take another pay cut. Meanwhile, the executives were getting raises, with salaries in the seven figures range. How can you say that workers brought the company down??
In my post, I was reporting what local employees of this company were saying, not what I think.
One of my friends posted on FB the other day and said that her DH was more than likely going to lose his job. He had been working for Hostess for over 20 years. They had investments in the company and feared they would probably lose it all.
What job did he hold? My guess is that if he's one of the executives, he does not need to worry about losing a penny of his investments.
Ahh, no worries up here in Canada: The company that owns the Hostess brand here is fine and will continue to produce all the goodies for us Canucks. Now Twinkies will join Red Rose tea and Coffee Crisp bars in being "only in Canada eh?".
I was just in World Market yesterday, going through the awesome foreign candy and cookies aisles and it hit me.....Twinkies might show up here in the next few years, as a Canadian import!
We can buy both of those in the US.
How about Ketchup chips? I keep hearing they're not available, but maybe that's a specific brand? It's surprising to me that ANYTHING available in Canada wouldn't be in the US. Generally it's vice versa.
The Lay's brand isn't available in stores here but you can get in online. There are some regional brands that offer ketchup chips but they're not widely available. Just doesn't seem to be a popular flavor here.
One Canadian food product that I can't get here is the Epicure brand of dip mix. : I think it's mostly a home sales business and I just haven't gotten around to finding a seller that will ship to me. My sister's in Canada a lot but can I trust her to buy it for me? In a word - no.
Never heard of it, but then I'm not on the home party circuit. Here's the website - doesn't look like they do simple mail order - https://www.epicureselections.com/en/
Judging by the product selection though, I highly recommend having a look at The Spice House. I order from the all the time, despite the high shipping cost, which you wouldn't be subjected to, plus they regularly do free shipping events in the US if you follow them on FB or sign up for the e-newsletter. They have a bunch of dip mixes (we love the Chip Dip Seasoning) as well as many other well known and housemade blends, and the finest jarred spices and herbs I've ever found.
I was sent a couple of packets once and they were wonderful. I've called them and they have no intention of expanding to the US and seemed a bit offended that I even asked. Thanks for the other link. I'll check it out.
It might just be my foreign eyes, but ding dongs just sound dirty
You just go ding that dong *Jen*!
Isn't it actually King Dons? Or am I confused? (Yes, I googled and am still confused )
I haven't had a Hostess product in at least 35 years so I won't start now. But probably someone will buy the recipes? Lance or Little Debbie or someone like that.
I have no doubt those snacks will continue.
Hostess to go into mediation.
Here's hoping the mediation involves the executives agreeing to take the same sort of pay cuts they want the workers to take, if the company's payroll is really such a huge threat to its survival.
Wow, what a fluke that now the business might not go bankrupt and instead has gotten tons of publicity and business. Weird how that happens, huh? All you gotta do is threaten the livelihood of 18,000 working people and voila!....big upswing to the business. Good move, executives, you're earning every penny of your three million a year wage.
Ding Dongs in some areas, King Dons in others. I think my dad still owes me and my sisters a box of Ding Dongs after he snarfled through a whole box intended for us. Back in like 1976 or something.
Well, if this submission to Cute Overload is anything to go by, Corgi's love Twinkies.
"Hostess, union mediation fails; Twinkies return to chopping block":
This was re-published in salon.com today and sheds a little light on why at least some of the workers were willing to strike and defy the Teamsters:
Vulture Capitalism, Not Unions, Killed Twinkies
Snopes article about the executive bonuses. Worth the read.
Huff Po article about the Teamster's view of the strike.
I'd like to ask those of you coming down hard on the side of the baker's union - if they are so completely in the right, then why did Teamsters take the deal? If you were them, what would you have wanted in this situation? To negotiate or to lose your job? Do you feel that the bakers standing their ground were justified even if their actrions did directly lead to the loss of 18,000 jobs? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I'd really like to try to understand your mindset because to me, it certainly doesn't seem like their (the bakers) actions were at all logical.
What was the deal for the Teamsters? What kinds of concessions did they make? How many of them are there, and how much do they make now? I haven't seen anything written about that.
Also, Pavelko asks why assume that the company will be as badly managed going forward as it has been in the past. I don't know--maybe it's because the same people who've screwed up are in charge, and they've asked the bankruptcy court for millions in additional compensation to manage through the bankruptcy.
I have no doubt the books are bad: the company's been gutted. I haven't seen an argument by the bakers' union that it hasn't been. The bakers are arguing that any further concessions will line the pockets of management and investors, and they lose their pensions in any case.
Separate names with a comma.